Teresita T. Daiz - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          her employer had acquired new facilities distant from Stockton,             
          petitioner agreed to a series of temporary assignments requiring            
          her to travel substantial distances from Stockton.  Her                     
          supervisor repeatedly promised her reassignment to a facility in            
          the Stockton area.                                                          
               Petitioner had established her home near her place of                  
          employment and only accepted temporary assignments outside that             
          area on the promise of reassignment within the Stockton area.               
          She had no reason to disbelieve her supervisor during the year in           
          issue.  In a later year, when she did cease to believe the                  
          promises of her supervisor, she changed her place of employment.            
          Under these circumstances, in our view throughout the year in               
          issue petitioner properly regarded the Stockton vicinity as the             
          metropolitan area where she “lives and normally works”.                     
          Therefore, even under respondent’s own revenue ruling, and the              
          rule advocated by respondent in this case, petitioner correctly             
          deducted transportation expenses incurred in going between                  
          Stockton and her temporary work sites at Novato, Napa, and Yuba             
          City to the extent such expenses are substantiated.                         
               Respondent’s reliance on Aldea v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          2000-136, is unwarranted since the circumstances there were                 
          entirely different from the present case.  In Aldea, we stated:             
                    Petitioner has not established any business reason                
               for living in Yuba City; her decision to live there was                
               entirely personal. * * * The record does not indicate                  
               that petitioner ever worked in, had the prospect of                    
               work in, or had any other business tie to Yuba City.                   
               The union hall where petitioner received her job                       
               assignments was in Sacramento, which is south of Yuba                  
               City, and all of petitioner’s work sites were south of                 
               Sacramento.                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011